Talk:Return of the Robot Maker
Status of Deletion in Syndication, for Coffee Scene Valor, I noticed you removed the note about the coffee scene being deleted in syndication. While it may be the case that the scene was not deleted in some (or even many) markets, I am positive that it was in fact deleted in a version of the episode I saw. I was taken aback by that scene, because I clearly recall never having seen it before. The show was aired on (what was then known as) CKVR in Barrie, Ontario, Canada starting around 1994, and I still have episodes on tape. I'm going to dig them out and review them, to confirm that the scene was in fact missing. If so, it would be prudent to restore the entry. — redrain85 (talk) \08:05, 30 January 2007(UTC) :Hi Rod. The first thing I did was simply add to what you wrote by noting that the coffee scene was kept intact in several syndicated markets. I have old VHS tapes from Cleveland which prove so. Curiously, my observation was deleted this morning due to its "extraneous" nature, even though 99% of the nitpicks on that page fit that description. So something's clearly afoot. Why not restore your original post and incorporate this new information?--Valor 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ::Valor's observation, while equitable, simply doesn't meet the criteria for the category. The fact that some markets retained the scene is moot; we're looking for records of scenes that have been deleted. That's why the observation was removed; it had no bearing under the category. I apologize if using the word, "extraneous" did not completely represent my reasoning--but I try to keep edit summaries succinct. ::Moreover, I see no reason for the removal of Rod's original observation simply because a question of validity has been raised. We have already established precedent for this circumstance with the creation of the tag. Therefore, I am restoring the entry and adding the tag. It should remain attached until Rod or someone else can validate the record. ::Lastly, Nitpicks and Scenes Deleted In Syndication are two completely different categories; the content of one cannot be compared to -- nor used to invalidate -- the content of the other. (Incidentally, I don't think nitpicks are extraneous at all. They may be trivial but not irrelevant.) — Paul (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) :::Oh dear. Honestly, an issue this minor doesn't merit this much drama. The problem is that "Scenes deleted in syndication" is too vague. Rod's post made it sound like the coffee scene hadn't been viewed since its original broadcast airing. Maybe that's what he meant, or maybe he didn't. That's why I added my helpful and factual (yes, factual) anecdote. It's only "extraneous" to the uninformed. If Rod gets the benefit of the doubt, so do I. To avoid further confusion in the future, the sub-title should read "Scenes sometimes deleted in syndication." The Sci-Fi Channel may have pulled that scene (and they did), but other markets did not. That's the fact, Jack. --Valor 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ::::It may be a fact (Jack) or it may not; I'm inclined to wait until Rod examines his tape. As for the ambiguity of the header, you make a valid point. But instead of changing the wording, I think citing the channel would better serve our overall goal for accuracy. A tag might be a good idea. Or a symbol. I'll play around with some mark-up. — Paul (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)